|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This is one of the most profoundly racist articles I've ever read on wikipedia. The thing looks like it was copy-pasted from the stormfront archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.160.254 ( talk) 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED actually translates to WIKIPEDIA IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE I hope you can live with yourselves. I hope that "policy" is enough to shield yourself from your conscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even here? Shouldn't something so violent and vicious be deleted and forgotten? That way, if no one remembers it, then it may not occur again. -- 70.118.121.189 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply because it is informative and it also explains how and why people do this. Now I don't agree with it but I think there should be an article about this because it talks about the history of it. If it was deleted, then no one would beable to know about this and thats why it shouldn't be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DemonicSailormoon ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
is that it is at least as socially impactive, if not more so, than the few local paper stories that reported on it, and furthermore it is of a nature that could perpetuate hate crimes. If responsible wikipedians agree it should be kept, at least we should agree on an ID warning box, something to the effect: "Warning: contents are politically charged and their significance is disputed." We do have the power to be responsible!
If anyone can make such a warning box, thank you in advance. MotherFunctor
Johntex\ talk 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The real problem with this article is that the so-called sourcing sucks. Just look at the first footnote. The opening sentence says, "Beat Up a White Kid Day is a May Day event in Cleveland, Ohio[1]" But the footnote for that assertion says no such thing. That's the problem with every single footnote in this article. Corvus cornix 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The references all point to the Wikipedia articles about the newspapers referenced, but not to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website. That is because there is nothing in the Plain Dealer's archives which discuss this supposed "annual event". I'm beginning to wonder if it's made up. Corvus cornix 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I pondered during this article's AfD was the renaming of it - perhaps it's more appropriately named as, say, "May First Racial Assaults" or something? Thoughts? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This article purports to identify a continuing and prevalent event throughout the United States. It does not. It references an event which occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and provides no evidence that this event was replicated elsewhere in the country.
It is noteworthy that the article commences with pejorative innuendo that "May Day" is related to socialist and communist protests. Just how does that relate with the incident of violence that is referenced?
I believe the overall effect is to depict young persons of nonwhite ethnicity as violent and racist. The single incident does not render nonwhite youth as violent and racist but this entry does betray a certain level of racist fear-mongering which a legitimate reference work should not countenance.
This should be reconsidered for deletion. LAWinans ( talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added some information which indicates that the Cleveland case is not as straightforward a case of racially motivated violence as might be thought. The accusation that Melissa gossiped about one girl's sexual abuse and suicide attempt suggests there are alternative explanations such as a personal vendetta. Most of this theory of mayday black-on-white attacks seems to rely on the 2003 case (i am not sure but i don't think that white children were beaten in the race riots?). So this does weaken the general theory behind this article. [1] This case seems rather confusing so if anyone has the copies of the Cleveland paper that are cited in the references and has time to attach them to this article that'd be fantastic -- 131.111.216.251 ( talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as i can tell there's two pieces of evidence that this exists beyond the cleveland 2003 case:
It's worth reporting these people's statements but neither is infallible, so it's unwise to just baldly assert that this is a longstanding tradition ("This day that "blacks beat on whites" continued, but without publicity until 2003..."). the connection to rodney king is OR by synthesis. It would probably be better to move this article to "Melissa King assault case," or something, since that's really all it's about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.179.31 ( talk) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A pointless and trivial article. Where is the significance? Outside of this incident there is nothing to confirm that such a day exists. Recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.61.253 ( talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
During both AfDs and the DRV it was suggested this be renamed. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as 'Beat up a white kid day), the references are about a specific event in Cleveland on May 1st, 2003. The article needs re-naming. May 1st 2003 racial assaults in Cleveland? Dougweller ( talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is irrelevant and is probably a "15 minutes of fame" type of thing. Someone should delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 ( talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this event notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (events)? Jesanj ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m going to tag all relevant parties in a later edit since I’m doing this on mobile, and it’s more convenient on a desktop. @ Desertambition: @ Doug Weller: @ TylerBurden:
I’m sorry for assessing the existing sources, all in which appear to call the allegations that this unprovoked, brutal attack was done solely because the victim was white and not because of an existing vendetta between the victim and the perpetrators, which IIRC are barely out of middle school, and making appropriate adjustments. I didn’t realize that refusing to appeal to a white genocide fantasy was considered hostile, especially given how that appears to be the main reason this article exists. Trying to paint it as an example of white genocide citing egregious storefront articles and creepily detailed violence that just up and sounds like porn for sickos.
But now I’m being accused of being someone’s sock puppet which is ridiculous. I have edited Wikipedia via an IP as far back as 2020 as far as I remember, I made one account who's sign in data I lost access to, and with no email connecting me to it which prompted me to make this one after more IP edits. I’m sure you can find out with a deep scrub on my Wikipedia activities that I have no connection to Desertambition beyond him just popping out of nowhere after I first decided to make these edits.
You asked me to discuss this so here I am. June Parker ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me for intervening, but this appears to me to be borderline WP:Battleground. Can you please take this discussion elsewhere and try to keep it a little more civil? Wikipedia is not about winning after all. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 22:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@ StellarNerd: You reverted my additions to the page twice under the guise that I used the word "Insisted" instead of "Ruled", given the sources claim this was a judicial ruling and that would be more accurate.
I kept "Ruled" as you asked me to, before this I made the edit in order to make additions to the article that both added more weight to the "May Day" allegations as well as pulling info from a new source (That you added) and pushed a more neutral POV. I understand how you feel about "Insisted" but don't remove sourced additions to the article. Are there any other problems you'd like to discuss?
BTW @ TylerBurden: I am already in the talk page Tyler, what are the problems you'd like to talk about? June Parker ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
"The attack occurred on May Day, on which black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day, with the judge in the trials determining that "May Day is reality and the evidence was overwhelming that this was an attack based on May Day and that the victim was chosen because she was white."
I don't see why it is necessary to alter the lead from the current state, similar to how you added insisted previously the addition of allegedly is a bit odd considering the very next sentence which concludes that it does exist.So of course I am going to bring up my opinion of the lead (ie. "black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day") that you said you support. I have personally never heard of this phenomenon. The article makes it sound like this is a thing "black kids" do regularly.
I was trying to respond to Tyler and got hit with another edit conflict, christ. 3 paragraphs gone. June Parker ( talk) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Trying this again, Tyler, I changed the reference names because for a previous page I helped expand, I used names like "Porn1" an "Smut2" but was told it was not appropriote, so I thought "Violence" and "Stomp" were not either...
... God I forget everything else I was going to say to you. Christ. It was so well written and got the point right on, Just please don't revert my edits without seeing it fist, I went out of my way to remove "Insisted" because I was asked, and I don't like how you accused me of trying to push my agenda by pulling from a source that Stellar added. But I'm here to speak to you and come to a comprimise, I want the additions I added (Which add weight to the May Day claims) to stay in some way. Just keep chatting me up, maybe it will come back to me. June Parker ( talk) 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @ StellarNerd:, what are your two cents on this. I would appreciate if you participated in this discussion instead of watching and nitpicking how I choose to express my viewpoints on the noticeboard. June Parker ( talk) 23:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This is one of the most profoundly racist articles I've ever read on wikipedia. The thing looks like it was copy-pasted from the stormfront archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.160.254 ( talk) 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED actually translates to WIKIPEDIA IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE I hope you can live with yourselves. I hope that "policy" is enough to shield yourself from your conscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 ( talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even here? Shouldn't something so violent and vicious be deleted and forgotten? That way, if no one remembers it, then it may not occur again. -- 70.118.121.189 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply because it is informative and it also explains how and why people do this. Now I don't agree with it but I think there should be an article about this because it talks about the history of it. If it was deleted, then no one would beable to know about this and thats why it shouldn't be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DemonicSailormoon ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
is that it is at least as socially impactive, if not more so, than the few local paper stories that reported on it, and furthermore it is of a nature that could perpetuate hate crimes. If responsible wikipedians agree it should be kept, at least we should agree on an ID warning box, something to the effect: "Warning: contents are politically charged and their significance is disputed." We do have the power to be responsible!
If anyone can make such a warning box, thank you in advance. MotherFunctor
Johntex\ talk 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The real problem with this article is that the so-called sourcing sucks. Just look at the first footnote. The opening sentence says, "Beat Up a White Kid Day is a May Day event in Cleveland, Ohio[1]" But the footnote for that assertion says no such thing. That's the problem with every single footnote in this article. Corvus cornix 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The references all point to the Wikipedia articles about the newspapers referenced, but not to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's website. That is because there is nothing in the Plain Dealer's archives which discuss this supposed "annual event". I'm beginning to wonder if it's made up. Corvus cornix 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I pondered during this article's AfD was the renaming of it - perhaps it's more appropriately named as, say, "May First Racial Assaults" or something? Thoughts? -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This article purports to identify a continuing and prevalent event throughout the United States. It does not. It references an event which occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and provides no evidence that this event was replicated elsewhere in the country.
It is noteworthy that the article commences with pejorative innuendo that "May Day" is related to socialist and communist protests. Just how does that relate with the incident of violence that is referenced?
I believe the overall effect is to depict young persons of nonwhite ethnicity as violent and racist. The single incident does not render nonwhite youth as violent and racist but this entry does betray a certain level of racist fear-mongering which a legitimate reference work should not countenance.
This should be reconsidered for deletion. LAWinans ( talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added some information which indicates that the Cleveland case is not as straightforward a case of racially motivated violence as might be thought. The accusation that Melissa gossiped about one girl's sexual abuse and suicide attempt suggests there are alternative explanations such as a personal vendetta. Most of this theory of mayday black-on-white attacks seems to rely on the 2003 case (i am not sure but i don't think that white children were beaten in the race riots?). So this does weaken the general theory behind this article. [1] This case seems rather confusing so if anyone has the copies of the Cleveland paper that are cited in the references and has time to attach them to this article that'd be fantastic -- 131.111.216.251 ( talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as i can tell there's two pieces of evidence that this exists beyond the cleveland 2003 case:
It's worth reporting these people's statements but neither is infallible, so it's unwise to just baldly assert that this is a longstanding tradition ("This day that "blacks beat on whites" continued, but without publicity until 2003..."). the connection to rodney king is OR by synthesis. It would probably be better to move this article to "Melissa King assault case," or something, since that's really all it's about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.179.31 ( talk) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A pointless and trivial article. Where is the significance? Outside of this incident there is nothing to confirm that such a day exists. Recommend deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.61.253 ( talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
During both AfDs and the DRV it was suggested this be renamed. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as 'Beat up a white kid day), the references are about a specific event in Cleveland on May 1st, 2003. The article needs re-naming. May 1st 2003 racial assaults in Cleveland? Dougweller ( talk) 19:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is irrelevant and is probably a "15 minutes of fame" type of thing. Someone should delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 ( talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this event notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (events)? Jesanj ( talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I’m going to tag all relevant parties in a later edit since I’m doing this on mobile, and it’s more convenient on a desktop. @ Desertambition: @ Doug Weller: @ TylerBurden:
I’m sorry for assessing the existing sources, all in which appear to call the allegations that this unprovoked, brutal attack was done solely because the victim was white and not because of an existing vendetta between the victim and the perpetrators, which IIRC are barely out of middle school, and making appropriate adjustments. I didn’t realize that refusing to appeal to a white genocide fantasy was considered hostile, especially given how that appears to be the main reason this article exists. Trying to paint it as an example of white genocide citing egregious storefront articles and creepily detailed violence that just up and sounds like porn for sickos.
But now I’m being accused of being someone’s sock puppet which is ridiculous. I have edited Wikipedia via an IP as far back as 2020 as far as I remember, I made one account who's sign in data I lost access to, and with no email connecting me to it which prompted me to make this one after more IP edits. I’m sure you can find out with a deep scrub on my Wikipedia activities that I have no connection to Desertambition beyond him just popping out of nowhere after I first decided to make these edits.
You asked me to discuss this so here I am. June Parker ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me for intervening, but this appears to me to be borderline WP:Battleground. Can you please take this discussion elsewhere and try to keep it a little more civil? Wikipedia is not about winning after all. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 22:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@ StellarNerd: You reverted my additions to the page twice under the guise that I used the word "Insisted" instead of "Ruled", given the sources claim this was a judicial ruling and that would be more accurate.
I kept "Ruled" as you asked me to, before this I made the edit in order to make additions to the article that both added more weight to the "May Day" allegations as well as pulling info from a new source (That you added) and pushed a more neutral POV. I understand how you feel about "Insisted" but don't remove sourced additions to the article. Are there any other problems you'd like to discuss?
BTW @ TylerBurden: I am already in the talk page Tyler, what are the problems you'd like to talk about? June Parker ( talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
"The attack occurred on May Day, on which black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day, with the judge in the trials determining that "May Day is reality and the evidence was overwhelming that this was an attack based on May Day and that the victim was chosen because she was white."
I don't see why it is necessary to alter the lead from the current state, similar to how you added insisted previously the addition of allegedly is a bit odd considering the very next sentence which concludes that it does exist.So of course I am going to bring up my opinion of the lead (ie. "black kids hold a custom of "Beat up a White Kid" day") that you said you support. I have personally never heard of this phenomenon. The article makes it sound like this is a thing "black kids" do regularly.
I was trying to respond to Tyler and got hit with another edit conflict, christ. 3 paragraphs gone. June Parker ( talk) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Trying this again, Tyler, I changed the reference names because for a previous page I helped expand, I used names like "Porn1" an "Smut2" but was told it was not appropriote, so I thought "Violence" and "Stomp" were not either...
... God I forget everything else I was going to say to you. Christ. It was so well written and got the point right on, Just please don't revert my edits without seeing it fist, I went out of my way to remove "Insisted" because I was asked, and I don't like how you accused me of trying to push my agenda by pulling from a source that Stellar added. But I'm here to speak to you and come to a comprimise, I want the additions I added (Which add weight to the May Day claims) to stay in some way. Just keep chatting me up, maybe it will come back to me. June Parker ( talk) 04:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @ StellarNerd:, what are your two cents on this. I would appreciate if you participated in this discussion instead of watching and nitpicking how I choose to express my viewpoints on the noticeboard. June Parker ( talk) 23:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)